Jay R. Ashworth wrote: [...]
Oh yeah, it was quite clear to me that it was an infrastructural problem. But yes, breaking it out into another datum will solve most of the problem. I'm still not happy with overloading it into the version number rather than the name, but perhaps there are couplings between the "internal" (module calling) and "external" (packaging) namespaces of which I'm not aware. If so, a pox on the house of whomever designed that system.
But in my proposal there is no mentioning of version or name overloading at all. You can call your modules 0.01 and it should be just fine.
Sorry to waste your time, Stas.
You aren't, Jay. I just suggest to move that energy into a different plane.
All I want is to see things happening. I've pushed for this and a few other changes for more than year on p5p and cpan lists, but until end users will not start complaining en masse to those in charge, I don't see things starting to move.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
-- Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
